Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

I think the actual quote was "peace for our time" if we're being picky.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

I don't know for the Hurricane, but the Spitfire was designed for four MGs originally, then came the Air Ministry's specs for eight machineguns, leading to the re-design of the wings which were now of elliptic form.

If you mean the introduction of cannon armament, it was introduced on the E-3 first (two MGs, two cannons), and the E-3 production run parallel to the all-MG E-1 from the end of 1938.

In all fairness, neither could the RAF for about another six months if I recall correctly. ;) Its true that the first AI systems were employed in 1940 by a Blenheim, but it was more an experimental set in field test rather than anything more serious.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

I'll take your word for it, although the specification was issued a year before the first Spitfire flew. The point is that the Air Ministry (or Ralph Sorley) had studied armament needs and come up with the 8 MG specification. They were thinking ahead.

So the Bf 109's cannon came years later than the 8 MG specification — which was kind of my point. Also consider what was actually in service. Wasn't the Bf 109 D in use in the Polish campaign and (as an earlier post on this thread said) the E-1 a significant element of strength in the BoB?

From memory, RAF night fighters practically doubled their kills each month through the Blitz months of 1941.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

I don’t know the Kurfürst's source but both Morgan’s & Shacklady’s Spitfire. The History and Price’s The Spitfire Story show that Supermarine’s F.37/34 design had elliptic wings very early on when it still had only 4 mgs in its wings. For ex Price shows drawing based on Jan 1935 stage with elliptic wings and 4 mgs.

Juha

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

Its my understanding that the change from 4 to 8 guns was done at the mock up stage before production started.
The first radar kill by a Beaufighter was in November 1940 and the first Blenhiem NF kill was in July 1940. There were of course other kills between the two and whilst I do not doubt that there was a lot of development in this time, there wasn't a 6 month gap.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

My point is that they were hardly the only ones, the major difference being that while the RAF was increasing the number of guns for its fighter specifications, others were on the path of opting for cannon armament.

The March 1933 specification of the RLM - which ultimately lead to the 109 - specified either

-a single, very powerful but heavy 2cm MG C/30 Motorkanone
- two engine cowl-mounted 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns, or
- one lightweight, engine-mounted 2c MG FF cannon with two 7.92 mm MG 17s.

Regardless, the competing German firms seems to have been putting with a twin cowl MG at the start (which was pretty much standard for the biplanes they replaced anyway), but the idea for heavier armament was there, from the start, and the technical aspects of the planes clearly anticipated such (see use of side mounted superchargers of the engines - this made engine mounted guns possible).

The British AM's revision for specs for gun armement (8-gun batteries) came in April 1935.The French were also adopting engine mounted cannons for the fighters at about the same time, and the Soviets were absolute pioneers of cannon armament on their I-16s AFAIK.

The eight-gun Hurricane came into service in the end of 1937, I don't know how many were in service during 1938, but I'd risk saying not many. At the start of the war there were still just about 500 produced, equipping 18 Squadrons (so roughly 2-300 being in service).

The first Spits came into service August 1938, but production was so slow they couldn't even muster a full Squadron until the end of the year, when the cannon armed 109E production started. The Emil then very rapidly started to equip units - I believe a large number of airframes were already produced, they were waiting for the Daimler-Benz engines to arrive. The Jumo powered 109D, that was the sole type employed in September 1938 (780 or so in service) was rapidly replaced by Emils by the start of the war; in July 1939, there were already some 500 Emils (and 50 of the old Doras) in service, and this roughly doubled by the end of September 1939, with some 90% of the 1125 available day fighters being the most recent type (see: http://ww2.dk/oob/statistics/se30939.htm).

In short, effectively (meaning: in meaningful numbers) cannon armed 109s and eight gun Hurricanes/Spitfires came into service at about the same time.

I believe it (the Dora) was, moreover it made up something like half the 109 force over Poland, but that force was rather small (200 or so, with the rest guarding the German air space from the West), and overall it was being phased out completely and for all practical purposes.

As for the E-1, it seems to have been produced parallel and with roughly the same production ratio as the cannon E-3 until early 1940, and made up about 35-40% of the force during BoB.

I've always wondered why this was so; there's an early war propaganda picture showing two 109Es in flight, and the leader is flying a cannon E-3 while the wingman an all-MG E-1.

I was wondering if there was some tactical doctrine behind it, stipulating that the leader responsible for the attack will be flying a heavier armed aircraft, with armament suitable against bombers, while a wingman with an armament more suitable against fighters will be protecting him..? It should be noted that it was an exception for a fighter to be armored until mid-1940, so MG armament would be still effective. IMHO it would worth looking at if JGs were equipped in such fashion, with an equal mix of E-1s and E-3s.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

Ranks (or position) hath its privileges.

Leading pilots just picked up the newer and better crates, the wing men and newbies were assigned what was left, more often than not the hand me downs.

However there was a concept of light and heavy fighters (no, the latter not being the Zerstoerer). The E-5 was originally planned (iirc) as the light fighter next to the E-4. All from memory, so shoot me down in flames if I am contrary to spec.

BTW I agree that the RAF was running behind with its all LMG armament, not in the forefront.

Ruy

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

Hello
Fighter Command had 1 Sept 39 1’099 a/c of which 747 in first line units (incl. 347 Hurricanes and 187 Spitfires). RAF had received 497 Hurricanes by that date, I haven’t number for Spits instantly at hand.

Juha

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

Some numbers from Robertson's book "Spitfire - The Story of a Famous Fighter".

RAF had 400 Spitfires "in service" in September 1939, from page 22. Maybe this means "delivered"?

Also from this book, the first order of aircraft were all delivered by August 1939. That would be K9787 to L1096, 310 aircraft. The next batch of 200, N3023 and on, started delivery on 9 August 1939.

So, roughly 300 to 400 delivered by 1 September 1939.

Re: Any dispute about interpreting the BofB?
 

Hello Bill
Thanks for the info!

Juha